21 June 2009 9:53 AM

The Eurosceptics are just as phoney as President Blair

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column

Any day now you could wake up and find that you are subject to the rule of President-of-Europe Anthony Blair.

After the Irish and the Czechs have been clubbed into submission this autumn, the long-planned European Superstate will at last come into being. And Mr Blair is likely to be its Head of State. For those of a sensitive disposition, this means two horrible things happening at once.

It is bad enough that the ghastly Blair creature might rise from the political tomb, hands clasped in pious prayer, upper lip trembling with fake emotion, pockets crammed with money from the lecture circuit, drivel streaming from his mouth. That would perhaps be the only thing that might make the nation warm to Gordon Brown again.

But far worse is the awful truth, which so many have hidden from themselves, that Britain will from that moment cease to be an independent nation in any important way.

The EU will take on a ‘legal personality’ of its own, become a nation in its own right, one in which we are a subject province for the first time in more than a thousand years, less independent than Texas is of Washington DC.

And this is why I hate the people in politics and the media who call themselves ‘Eurosceptics’. What are they for? What good have they done? They stand about, mainly in the Unconservative Party, claiming to be concerned about the way the EU is swallowing this country.

But they refuse to take the one step that would actually make a difference. They will not call for this country to leave the EU. You will have to ask them why not. There is no reason Britain could not exist outside the EU, which sells more to us than it buys from us, drags us into trade disputes with the USA which are not in our interest, steals our fish, chokes our small business, mucks up our farms and milks us each year of incalculably large sums of money we could spend better ourselves.

There is every reason for us to go our own way, especially if we wish to preserve our unique laws and liberties against the fast-approaching ‘Stockholm Programme’ which aims to impose continental law on this country, together with a menacing set of surveillance powers quite beyond the control of our Parliament.

So the next time a ‘Eurosceptic’ presents himself to you for election, ask him why he won’t go the extra yard (not metre), and if he won’t do so, find a man who can. The time for scepticism is long past. What is there left to have doubts about? The thing is as bad as we feared. The time for secession has arrived.

**************************************

Tearing down another safety net

Why would the Government be so keen to repeal a law which protects free speech? You decide. Here are the details. Last year, in a law called The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, New Labour created a new criminal offence, called ‘incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation’.

I will not argue here about whether such a law is necessary or right. My point is different. What is important is that several Peers were concerned that such a law might one day be misused to prosecute the expression of opinion.

They rightly did not trust assurances that such a law could never be used for such purposes. They had noticed the increasing tendency of the police to menace individuals for voicing unfashionable opinions about homosexuality.

So they fought to insert a clause saying ‘for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred’.

Government spokesmen claimed this was not necessary.

Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re wrong. Who can tell the future? That’s the whole point, and wise law-makers know that laws are often used in ways never intended by those who drafted and passed them. But what harm can such a safeguard possibly do? None, obviously.

Yet, probably this Tuesday, the liberal State will mobilise its forces in the House of Lords to rip away this sensible safety net. If it succeeds, I predict that the result will be the persecution of Christians and others who wish to resist the sexual revolution.

**************************************

Let Britain's branch lines run again

Are we at last beginning to grasp that the massacre of the railways by Dr Richard Beeching was a grave mistake?

Train companies are talking of reopening dozens of abandoned lines and stations, and about time too. Why not reopen the lot? Scores of medium-sized towns - absurdly - have no railway link.

The countryside is closed to those without cars. Millions of tons of freight clog the roads, which in the USA would certainly travel by rail. Road-building has failed.

As the M25 shows, the more you build, the more jammed they get. Railways were invented in this country because they suited our landscape. They still do. Whether you believe the global-warming panic merchants and the predictions that oil will run out, or whether you do not, there has never been a better time to bring back trains.

**************************************

Who will join the judge and speak against divorce?

The single biggest disaster of the Sixties was the introduction of easy divorce - a liberation for adults, paid for by the misery of millions of children ever since.

I am glad to hear Mr Justice Coleridge, who sees the results in family courts, condemning the ‘endless game of “musical relationships” - or “pass the partner” - in which such a significant portion of the population is engaged, in the endless and futile quest for a perfect relationship which will be attained, it is supposed, by landing on the right chair or unwrapping a new and more exciting parcel’.

But when will any politician have the nerve to admit that the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 was a grave error, and that marriage needs to be strengthened again?

The subject is almost undebatable. As Judge Coleridge has pointed out, the BBC plan to screen a powerful documentary series on family breakdown in the middle of the night so that hardly anyone will see it, preferring to keep prime time for violence, swearing and moral slurry.

**************************************

Final notes...

The weird religion of football softens the brain. The Iranian protests against the ayatollahs are without doubt the most significant events in the world today. Crucial, you might say. Yet when a group of Iranian footballers chose to don green armbands to show their support for the protesters, the BBC reported, in radio news bulletins, that they did this before a ‘crucial’ soccer match. That’s right. The game was ‘crucial’. The struggle for the future of a great country was unworthy of any adjective.

Who needs an inquiry into the Iraq War? It’s over. Nobody will be brought to justice. Isn’t it time Parliament debated our dubious involvement in Afghanistan, and sought to end it?

I am pleased to report that the powerful, gruelling film Katyn, about the Communist murder of the Polish officer corps, has at last been released in British cinemas. If it is showing near you, I recommend you make the effort to see it.

Guy, concerning the Douay-Rheims translation: Having read a few books on the subject, I hold to the Received Text of the Authorised Version – there's an immense volume of material (from all sides of the various divides) on the validity of which texts/translations are the more accurate – and I couldn't begin to do the subject justice here (even if I were capable of doing so).

I do recall though finding a copy of the Douay-Rheims in one of our local charity shops (I didn't actually buy it) but I did turn to Genesis 3:15 (as I've read that it seems to imply that it's the “woman”, and not “her seed” that will “crush” the serpents head); and it does seem to imply that.

On the subject of Westcott and Hort – the following quote is of some interest, it appears in G A Riplinger's, 'New Age Bible Versions'; and it's from the 'horse's mouth', so to speak (Hort's in this case); in a letter from circa 1860 to Westcott, he wrote:

“[T]his may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text ['New' Greek Testament] should be cast upon the world before we deal with maters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will find great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms... If only we speak our minds, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to... the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.” (Quoted from, 'The Life and Letters of Fenton Anthony Hort', Vol. I).

Thought you might be interested in the following quotes too, (also from Gail Riplinger's aforementioned work):

“Westcott and Hort were not only 'Fathers' in the Anglican church but, according to numerous historians and New Age researchers, appear to be among the 'Fathers' of the modern channelling movement.... The group referred to by [the Scottish historian] James Webb as an element in the 'Occult Underground' was 'The Ghost Club' or 'Ghostly Guild' launched in the 1850s by Westcott, Hort and Benson. Webb discloses:

'[A] Ghost Society [was] founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Bishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson writes in his father's biography, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost Club became Bishops [Benson and Westcott] and one a Professor of Divinity [Hort].'” (Source: 'The Occult Underground' by James Webb).

And:

“Historians researching this period reveal that other 'Ghostly Guild' members became... 'front men' [for The Society for Psychical Research (S.P.R.)]. Benson and Westcott were not above stalking their impressionable students to recruit members. Henry Sidgwick, a student of Wescott's and a cousin of Benson's 'joined the Ghost Society before he took his degree in 1859; Westcott was then secretary [of the Ghost Guild] and on his leaving Cambridge, Sidgwick appears to have succeeded him.' [The book] 'The Founders of Psychical Research' reports how the Ghostly Guild spurred Sidgwick's 'interest in the phenomena of Spiritualism' and incited his active involvement with them. Sidgwick was among a number whose disillusionment with Christianity was spawned during Westcott’s tenure at Trinity College in Cambridge. Author of 'The Fabians', a history of communism and socialism in England, writes:

'In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost evangelical faith... spiritism as a substitute for Orthodox Christian faith.'” (Source: 'The Fabians' by Norman & Jeanne MacKenzie, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1977).

'Christianity is about to die of self-inflicted wounds... It seemed to conservative Christians quite appalling that at a time when the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture was being undermined by Darwin and his allies, a group of those whose sacred duty should have been to shore it up again had conspired to hammer their wedge not under it, but into it. The reactions of the orthodox disgusted Sidgwick and those of his friends... He addressed a letter to The Times on the subject and was rather surprised that on the 20th February 1861 it was published. [It said in part] “Mr. Westcott expresses it, they love their early faith, but they love the truth more.”...'

“These strange bedfellows, communism and occultism, are uncovered [further] in 'The Fabians', a book detailing their interconnection in England. According to its authors [Norman & Jeanne MacKenzie], Edward Peace [sic Pease] and Frank Podmore were instrumental in the genesis of both the S.P.R. and the various Marxist societies of London. Peace referred to the work of Westcott, Hort and Sidgwick's 'Ghostly Guild' and his own Marxist activities as 'our common work.'...

“Hort's crimson calligrapher's pen jabs of '[M]y deep hatred of democracy in all its forms.' [And] 'I have pretty well made up my mind to devote three or four years up here to the study of communism.' Today New Age Benjamin Crème predicts, '…democracy will disappear.' The dialectical dream, with its thesis, antithesis, and synthesis seems to be taking form today with the breakdown of pure Communism and pure democracy into a common world socialism. Westcott's dreams, set forth in his book, 'Christian Socialism: What And Why', are coming true.

“Conspiracy buffs will prick up their ears to hear, not only of [Arthur] Balfour's esoteric comradeship with Westcott and Hort, but of his membership, beginning in 1881, in another 'secret society' with Cecil Rhodes, multimillionaire and founder of the famous Rhodes Scholarship. This society is said to be the germination for the C.F.R. (Council on Foreign Relations)....

“Frighteningly, the NIV [New International Version] changes the words in Hebrews 9:10 from 'until the time of the reformation' to:

'until the time of the new order.' NIV

“Neither the Greek words for 'new' nor 'order' are here in any manuscript. The Greek word implies 'an improvement', which is expressed well in the KJV. The NIV, more than any other translation I have collated, gives numerous chilling New Age renderings. This should not amaze the reader since the 'NIV follows the critical Westcott and Hort text.' And in this case, the 'spirit' of Westcott's 'glowing hope of the coming union of nations' and his call for 'the new order' haunts the NIV.” (Gail Riplinger, 'New Age Bible Versions', A V Publications Corp., 1993, 1999).

To conclude: the first two quotes below, are much fuller versions than those that appear in Gail Riplinger's work; concerning the final quote: it might seem a bit 'out there' in the 'Twilight Zone' (but I think you'll know where I'm coming from with this one Guy – Eph 6:12):

“Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and Bull Club'; our own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild'.” (Arthur Hort, 'The Life and Letters of Fenton Anthony Hort', Vol. I, Macmillan and Co., New York, 1896).

“[My father's] devotion with ardour is indicated in a 'Ghostly Circular' authorised by him. 'The interest and importance of a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely called "supernatural" will scarcely be questioned.' ... My father ceased to interest himself in these matters not altogether, I believe, from want of faith... but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. But there are many others who believe it possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways... Many of the stories current in tradition or scattered up and down in books, may be exactly true...” (Arthur Westcott, 'Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott', Vol. I, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London, 1903).”

“Suppose a group had investigated along the lines of rational thinking and finally contacted other forms of consciousness? ... [W]e know that occult organisations in the U.S. are usually groups of crackpots, idealists, and little old ladies. But then, maybe there are groups and occult societies that really have kept themselves secret. If so, a group like that could have the motivation and the means to manipulate public opinion on a grand scale.” (Jacques Vallee in 'The Edge of Reality: A progress report on Unidentified Flying Objects', by J Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1975).

Michael Williamson: I think I'll let Top Gear's James May have the last word on this matter.
"Getting to the station and working out which train you can take with the exact ticket you have is an astonishing bore, but there's no denying the simple fact that, once you're on one, a train is a fantastic way to travel the length of the country. To be honest, it sometimes seems to me that Beeching struck before the railways could show what they were really made of."

I have just read all of your post Mr Hughes, and I would have read all the parts quoted from Feb 2008 as I always read all your posts. Thank you for all the precious confirmatory material - I had no idea about what those two (Wescott, Hort) did to the KJV. There are some who have it that that even the original KJV was a deliberate misdirection. The Traditional Catholics hold that the earlier (I believe) Douay-Rheims Bible is the one to depend on, and I wonder if you have any opinion on that?

Hello Mark - where did you post up the passage from Lewis - I am losing the thread(s)!

Hello Vikki - it goes without saying that the more the Truth becomes known the more it will be accommodated and then misdirected, hence things like the Sky Illuminati documentary – as if the Murdoch channel is going to blow the gaffe! And the Dan Brown stuff that has gullible millions looking the wrong way. And even the 'open minded' Fortean Times which on these issues always throws a political hissy fit and mutters darkly about the Right. That magazine is a disgrace to the only true Fortean involved with it – the late, great John Michell.

Sometimes Channel 4 and even the BBC will go through the motions of exploring this area, but they never focus on the Left aspect (Toynbee, Wells) as they embody it themselves. So it will be ‘neocons’ all the way. Although the Neocons themselves ‘started out’ on the Left – I doubt that aspect gets aired much in these quarters.

So it goes on, at the moment unstoppable, and all very much according to the Wells/Toynbee model. I am being very Hegelian here, and emphasising the Left aspect – but damn it – that is all we get now, that particular virus having mutated in multitudinous forms until there is no longer Any Alternative (TINA) and leftspeak, with Mandelsonian twists about Free trade to con the Cons, is the lingua franca. A prime example of this (from Mandelson) came through on the bulletin this morning:

"Is it possible to preserve the benefits of open trade and an open global economy, addressing macroeconomic risk while totally respecting the choices of sovereign governments? Not really".

By the way, if Mr Davies is still reading this, this morning’s bulletin also provides an interesting angle on the contention that:

‘with 27 countries in the EU, the differences between the most developed and the least developed are now so great that the problem is developing any sort of coherent EU policies at all. In this mess, any prospect of establishing any sort of overall dominance seems further away than ever’

‘The European Commission has proposed to set up a new agency to oversee all its large-scale IT systems, thereby bringing together management of three key systems - the Schengen Information System, Visa Information System and Eurodac - plus other related applications, into a single operational structure. Webwereld reports that human right groups have expressed fears for big brother implications, as this would mean that data on all 500 million European Union citizens and all illegal migrants would be merged into a database for "freedom and security". The cost of the system would be €113 million in the first 3 years, and later €10 million per year following that.’

Guy Reid-Brown (in his post of 25 June 2009 at 12:04 PM) quotes Arnold [J] Toynbee's conspiratorial words, in which Toynbee – over three-quarters of a century ago now – pronounced the intentions of a powerful, and manipulative elite, to destroy the nation states of the world (by means of their power-base weeviled into the very heart of the National institutions) and from there, to work ceaselessly, and clandestinely toward the fulfilment of their ultimate desire.

I originally submitted the post below on the Hitchens' Blog thread, 'Some general replies', back in February 2008. It includes the quote Guy Reid-Brown refers to, as well as Toynbee's further musings (in addition to those of H G Wells – with which Guy is also familiar).

From my post of February, last year:

Peter Hitchens closes his post of 7th February [2008] at 11:00 AM, on the thread “The dangerous uselessness of 'Euroscepticism'”, by stating:

“I don't think the EU was a 'Marxist conspiracy'. It was certainly planned, but not by Marxists. Some Marxists or ex-Marxists have certainly seen features in it that they like - but then Marxism is just another strand of the Utopian idealism that infests Godless, power-worshipping civilisations.”

In response to which I'll quote the following; I've quoted it before on this 'blog, and now seems an appropriate time to quote it again. The following words are those of Professor Arnold J Toynbee (1889-1975), and are from a speech that he gave at the 4th Annual Conference of Institutions of International Relations, held in Copenhagen 8th-10th June 1931 (before even the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany and the shadow of a new world war). In his speech Toynbee stated the following:

“We are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest the mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.... [The] local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences, but sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them.”

Even more illuminating than the above words are those that precede them, where – in evoking the imagery of the Bible – Toynbee shows the passion of his contempt for national sovereignty by comparing it to the “abomination of desolation” (written of in the Old Testament book of Daniel):

“The local national state, invested with the attributes of sovereignty – is an abomination of desolation standing in the place where it ought not. It has stood in that place now... for four or five centuries. Our political task in our generation is to cast the abomination out, to cleanse the temple and to restore the worship of the divinity to whom the temple rightfully belongs.”

Before moving on, to look at some of the thoughts of H G Wells on how this movement would evolve and implement its designs, it seems appropriate – in the context of Toynbee's words above – to reflect on a few short words written by a man who would have such an earth-shattering affect on the history of the 20th century – that man being Karl Marx.

These words, as the late Rev Richard Wurmbrand informs us in his book 'Marx & Satan', were written by Marx in a letter to his father, dated November 10, 1837; and in which is contained the following cryptic passage, which most probably concerns Marx's conversion away from Christianity:

“A curtain had fallen. My holy of holies was rent asunder and new gods had to be installed.”

H G Wells would also describe, what he termed the “Open Conspiracy” against the sovereign nation states of the world, as being a new religious movement in itself – superseding the West's established religious beliefs – and which, given time, would to a large extent even displace the ideologies of both socialism and communism; for he wrote:

“[The first objective of the Open Conspiracy] must be the elaboration, exposition, and propaganda of this common idea, a steady campaign to revolutionize education and establish a modern ideology in men's minds and, arising out of this, the incomparably vaster task of the realization of its ideas....

“[In its latter stages] the character of the Open Conspiracy will... be plainly displayed. It will have become a great world movement as wide-spread and evident as socialism or communism. It will have taken the place of these movements very largely.... it will be frankly a [new] world religion.” ('The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings', Waterlow & Sons edition, 1933).

As to the realisation of its ideas Wells gives the following details:

“The political work of the Open Conspiracy must be conducted upon two levels and by entirely different methods. Its main political idea, its political strategy, is to weaken, efface, incorporate, or supersede existing governments. But there is also a tactical diversion of administrative powers and resources to economic and educational arrangements of a modern type.... Free Trade nationalism in power is better than high tariff nationalism, and pacifist party liberalism better than aggressive party patriotism.

“This evokes the anticipation of another series of groups, a group in every possible political division, whose task it will be to organize the whole strength of the Open Conspiracy in that division as an effective voting or agitating force. In many divisions this might soon become a sufficiently considerable block to affect the attitudes and pledges of the national politicians.”(ibid.)

Returning back to Toynbee's 1931 speech, he alludes to their modus operandi thus:

“If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind.

“It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly. The harder we press our attack upon the idol [of sovereignty], the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise – lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defence.”

Wells has the following to say on this matter:

“The Open Conspiracy is not necessarily antagonistic to any existing government. The Open Conspiracy is a creative, organizing movement and not an anarchistic one. It does not want to destroy existing controls and forms of human association, but either to supersede or amalgamate them into a common world directorate. If constitutions, parliaments, and kings can be dealt with as provisional institutions, trustees for the coming of age of the world commonweal, and in so far as they are conducted in that spirit, the Open Conspiracy makes no attack upon them.” (ibid.)

Mark Smith writes on this thread (“Some general replies”), 8th February [2008] at 01:11 PM:

“I believe there's a kind of conspiracy but I don't think it is organised. (Kind of like Al Quaeda. No real organisation but a collection [of] random acts committed by like minded people).”

H G Wells writes along the same lines:

“We do not present [the Open Conspiracy]... as a movement initiated by any individual or radiating from any particular centre. In this book we are not starting something; we are describing and participating in something which has [already] started. It arises naturally and necessarily from the present increase of knowledge and the broadening outlook of many minds throughout the world, and gradually it becomes conscious of itself. It is reasonable therefore to anticipate its appearance all over the world in sporadic mutually independent groupings and movements...” (ibid.)

As we've seen, Toynbee speaks with derision of national sovereignty, comparing it to an unclean “idol” that must be removed so as to cleanse the “temple”: to make it fit for what he believes should be truly worshipped. Notice also, that he says national sovereignty “has stood in that place now... for four or five centuries.” A statement which firmly places the birth of national sovereignty within the era of the Reformation and the opening up of the Bible to the people in the common tongue.

In the Revelation – immediately after the Second or Turkish Woe of the Sixth Trumpet, which would see the fall of Constantinople to the forces of Islam, and the ensuing fleeing of Greek scholars into Western Europe with their Greek texts and Bibles – John was shown a vision of a “mighty angel come down from heaven... And he had in his hand a little book open” (Rev 10:1-2).

John was then instructed to eat the little book: “And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, nations, and tongues, and kings.” (Rev 10:9-11).

Tyndale's last fervent cry and plea unto heaven from the stake, “Lord, open the King of England's eyes”, was duly answered. Within a year of his death a Bible was to be placed in every parish church throughout the land on the orders of the King.

In the original preface to the Authorised (or 'King James') Version of 1611 (which sadly is no longer included in modern prints), the translators wrote:

“The Hebrew text of the Old Testament, [and] the Greek [text] of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty themselves into the gold [candlestick].” (From: 'The Translators To The Reader: Being a Reprint of The Original Preface to the Authorized Version of 1611', Trinitarian Bible Society, 1998).

The above is in reference to the vision of the TWO olive trees on either side of the golden candlestick which feed it oil, as described in the Old Testament book of Zechariah (chapter 4; verses 1-6). In the Revelation the following is written:

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.” (Rev 11:3-5).

The predominant modern Futurist school of interpreting the prophecies of the Revelation takes a literal approach to the imagery of this last book of the Bible; as is evidenced by the following quote:

“Imagine the power that these Two Witnesses will have.... This must outrage Antichrist as he sees his leadership being threatened. Perhaps missiles will be aimed at these Witnesses...only to return somehow to their source causing death and injury. After many attempts to destroy them, Antichrist may even fling an entire army at them...” (From: 'Revelation Visualized', by Dr Gary G Cohen and Salem Kirban, Future Events Publications, Chattanooga, TN, USA, 1981).

“The symbolism, therefore, is to show that, from the writers of the Old and New Testament (the two olive trees), the Church (the lamp-stand) receives its true source of inspired teaching; and that without this constant supply of oil the light of the true Church would fail.... The 'fire out of their mouth' which devours their enemies (to which Futurists attach a literal, and consequently grotesque, meaning) is merely... metaphorical... (Comp. Jer. v. 14: 'I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.')”

The seismic shift that occurred within the Reformed churches during the latter-half of the 19th century, was not confined solely to the supersession of a method of prophetic interpretation – the exhaustive method of interpretation, that had indeed been held within those churches for many centuries. No, the very Bible itself – or at least those versions based on the Greek Textus Receptus (the Received Text of the Reformation-era translations) – would itself be targeted as ripe for supersession in the 'light' of supposed new knowledge concerning the ancient Greek texts.

The two principal men behind the rejection of the Textus Receptus were Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901; Bishop of Durham from 1890) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), in 1881 they unveiled their critical edition of “The New Testament in the Original Greek”.

“The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. The two most popular manual editions of the Greek text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S really vary little from the W-H text.... Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the deathblow to the KJV and the Greek text [the Textus Receptus], which was used for the previous 1880 years. Subsequent scholarship has tended to recognize Hort’s mistake. The W-H critical theory is erroneous... Our conclusions concerning the theory apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it (Nestle’s-Aland, U.B.S etc.) as well as those versions based on such texts (NIV, NASB, Good News for Modern Man, NEB, L.B., etc.)”

In her book 'New Age Bible Versions' (A V Publications Corp., 1993, 1999) G A Riplinger informs us that Westcott himself wrote of his desire for a single world government: “Our hearts are moved when statesmen or students speak with glowing hope of the coming union of nations...”.

And of Hort, Westcott's co-worker in the project to replace the Received Text? Riplinger supplies the following, culled from the 'Life of Hort', Vol. II, in which are preserved the following sentiments of the man – for he writes of his, “Deep hatred of democracy in all its forms.”

H G Wells, as we saw earlier, wrote that the “[Open Conspiracy] arises naturally and necessarily from the present increase of knowledge and the broadening outlook of many minds throughout the world...”

In the last chapter of the Old Testament book of Daniel, Daniel was informed to “shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” (The NRSV translates the Hebrew word for “knowledge” as “evil”!)

The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary on the above verse sheds the following light on it:

“run to and fro--not referring to the modern rapidity of locomotion, as some think... 'at the time of the end,' that is, near its fulfilment, 'many shall run to and fro,' that is, scrutinize it, running through every page. Compare Habakkuk 2:2 (CALVIN): it is thereby that 'the knowledge (namely, of God's purposes as revealed in prophecy) shall be increased.'”

Such an era dawned with the Reformation...

To conclude: there are also some strange parallels at work here: under the Sixth Trumpet of the Apocalypse a resurgent Islam finally took Constantinople – which as I've mentioned, saw Greek scholars flee westwards with their Greek New Testaments: the “little book” was truly opened...

Jump forward approximately four hundred years later, and the pouring out of the Sixth Vial of the Apocalypse would see the Turkish Ottoman empire drying up – the time of its drying up would also coincide with scholars bringing forth a new (corrupted) Greek text... One age would witness an increase in knowledge divine; the other an increase in 'knowledge' profane – with all its ensuing effects...

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.” (Hosea 4:6-7)

I think when you add the cost of duty on fuel, parking from which local authorities take a cut, duty on car sales (incidentally why are cars so much more expensive it this country than the rest of Europe?) you will find that the motorist more than pays for the roads.

As to the NHS, which I wasn't discussing, how many of those 'unfortunate souls' are illegal, or even legal, immigrants who never have and never will contribute. I tend to have more sympathy for those who have paid in all their lives and, when they get a serious illness at the age of seventy or more, are told they must sell all their possessions to pay for treatment.

I have no wish to fund your subsidised rail fares nor have I any wish to fund your medical treatment or anybody elses for that matter save my immediate family.

First up, thank-you both for commenting on the 1898 exam, I was interested to see what people thought of it and would have been particularly interested in reading some comments from the "Educational Standards are Better Now than Ever Before" brigade, but alas, they seem remarkably quiet...

Guy:
I have a feeling you are right. You can show as much evidence as you like and it won't matter a jot. We seem to be in an unhealthy state of self-denial, or cover up, neither of which bodes well....

Narnia- I would have enjoyed the film much more had the kids not been so annoying. I know there was some sort of attempt to insert the proper language of the times but to me they came across as a bit too wooden...but maybe I'm being too picky...I will look out for Coraline, although I think I may have just missed it..will pick up a dvd when it comes out!

Vikki: Glad you liked the Screwtape extract and again, thanks for commenting on that. I thought it quite relevant and strangely eerie reading it especially as it is so relevant to our time. A bit too relevant for my liking..

Hi Guy and Mark, well done, Guy for telling it like it is. Just how much persuasion do people actually need? By the way, there was a program on sky one a couple of nights ago, about the Illuminati!! I was highly suspicious about it and wondered who was behind the program. Needless to say, the overall impression given was that it is all a silly conspiracy. The presenter tried, on a few occasions throughout the program to meet one of the illuminati and it was all cloak and dagger and rather ludicrous and as far as I know (fell asleep) they never got to meet one.
I must admit though, that given that we have been talking about it, it did seem to completely hit me in the face, to suddenly see a program about it!! It mentioned Bohemian Grove where they make all their plans, the depopulation agenda, responsible anarchy, the Skull and Bones secret society of which Bush is a member and so on. I missed the bit about Common Purpose which I'd have liked to see. It was interesting, but if I was someone who hadn't heard and read about it, I would think it was something along the lines of the Diana conspiracy or JFK. The program followed a pattern a bit like it might if it were about a crack dealer. They had somehow dug someone up who purported to be able to arrange this meeting and who turned up in a BMW and took them off to some remote warehouse while talking to camera about how illusive 'they' are! Um!

Hello Mr Davies - I have unfortunately run out of time to expand all this and will be out of the loop the next few days but:

Briefly:

'There are three reasons I don’t believe in conspiracies or plots. '

Well, the only reason I believe in them is that they exist as tangible realities and I have had to accept the evidence.

People conspire, they always have done. You should not go mistaking someone like Nixon as an argument against their efficacy as he himself was low down in the chain, like all American Presidents. He had to conform to what people like Kissinger and the Rockefellers desired.

I know that my reading list was heavy fuel, but maybe you could just go on line and print off Gary Allen's 1971 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy', the perfect intro. I will cut and paste a section from the first page of the first chapter, and if you think this has an interesting ring about it for 1971 (and I have the yellowed paperback to back it up) you may wish to explore further:

‘We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the worldwide Communist advance, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the tea of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country into a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong.

Yet despite high hopes and glittering campaign promise these problems continue to
worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.’

Well, these days someone like Obama has no qualms about not appearing like the sort of high spending Big Government cradle-to-grave welfare merchant any communist would applaud, but Dubya was not so very different in the reality of domestic policy.

The fact is that radical communists like Alinsky will get the big money and big support from people higher up the chain who do not give a stuff about the collective welfare of humanity. That ideology suits their purposes because it militates against Nation, State, Race, Religion, Culture, Family etc and facilitates the centralization of power.

The EU does have power, subject to the power it is permitted for the time that it serves its purpose. Just like Nixon. Microcosm/Macrocosm.

Michael Williamson replies: "As usual your argument comes down to: 'If I want it somebody else must pay'. Those who wish to use public are welcome to do so provided they pay the full cost. What's wrong with that?"

Let's take the NHS: another of the "essential services" we are discussing.
Some people may never set foot in the doctor's surgery for their entire lives.
But they contribute the same to the system as any other tax payer.

However, other, less fortunate people may require hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of medical attention. Yet these poor souls, no matter how hard they work, may well never be able to afford such care, if they were to be presented with the bill.

Thus, with fair taxation for all, each and every citizen has access to expensive, life-saving care, which otherwise they may well not be able to pay for.

Now apply this to the railways.
The costs of rail journeys are small compared to expensive operations, drugs, consultants etc, and unlike NHS care, chargeable to the customer. But to make sure the fares are reasonable, I see no reason why this basic, fundamental public service cannot receive subsidy.

I'd much rather live in such a benevolent, responsible society, than the ghastly dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest nightmare to which your recommendations would lead.

As for your remark "'If I want it somebody else must pay'", then I disagree.
Though I don't often get the chance to travel by rail, I'll gladly pay for it, but at a reasonable fare. There's no reason why any return trip in England should cost more than £50 in my view. Yes, Mr Williamson, some of your tax pounds may well top up this reasonable fare to its actual cost. But on the other hand, my tax pounds will no doubt cover some of the huge cost of mending the road that takes you to work, of which the cost of your tax disc simply doesn't meet.

The stuff keeps flooding in; I just got the latest updates on EU coverage less than an hour ago including:

" 'The Parliament' reports that senior German Socialist MEP Jo Leinen has warned that Ireland risks being relegated to a "second class" nation if it again rejects the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum scheduled for the autumn. Leinen said, "If there is a 'No' vote in Ireland I think we are likely to see a two-speed Europe emerge, with Ireland being in what might be called the 'second class'. Those in 'first class' will forge ahead in policy areas such as foreign affairs, justice and energy while the Irish will fall back."

He added the Irish people "have to ask themselves if they want to be isolated from the rest of the EU or to be integrated into the EU" and that the Irish must vote 'Yes' if they wish to continue to benefit from the "protective umbrella" that the EU provides."

Yep - just Paper Tiger, misdirection, no serious threat, nothing to worry about etc. Although it DOES read like totalitarian bullying from where I’m sitting. I just don’t get the subtleties of these things, I suppose.

And the same bulletin highlights an article in the July edition of 'Prospect 'Magazine written by someone called Charles Grant, the Director of the Centre for European Reform.

The article is entitled 'The unravelling of the EU' and the subheading gives the gist of the argument:

'Divided on foreign and defence policy, the EU seems to be slipping backwards. It must learn to speak in one voice, or others will shape the new world order'

What a funny choice of words! I can only assume that Charles Grant, whoever he is, is yet ANOTHER in on the joke, like H G Wells, Carroll Quigley, Julian Huxley etc who are conspiring in this cosmic April Fool's prank I mentioned earlier. Mr Grant is obviously aware that H G Wells had a Tract published in 1941 entitled 'The New World Order' that called for the imposition of a One World Socialist Government and the end of Independent Sovereign Status and with this choice of words he is just keeping the joke going.

The exam was posted on the 'General Conversations on Waterloo Day' thread but I must admit I was interested to see what people thought and I posted it on there by mistake. I have copied and pasted it below- I hope the moderators don't mind me posting it once again. It is an exam for eleven year olds in 1898. No-one can say after reading it that standards haven't slipped and that we haven't been 'cut off at our roots'. Anyway, here 'tis and good luck:

""ENGLISH GRAMMAR
1. Write out in your best handwriting:—
‘O Mary, go and call the cattle home,And call the cattle home,And call the cattle home,Across the sands o’ Dee.’The western wind was wild and dank with foam,And all alone went she.
The western tide crept up along the sand,And o’er and o’er the sand,And round and round the sand,As far as eye could see.The rolling mist came down and hid the land —And never home came she.
2. Parse fully ‘And call the cattle home.’
3. Explain the meaning of o’ Dee, dank with foam, western tide, round and round the sand, the rolling mist.
4. Write out separately the simple sentences in the last two lines of the above passage and analyse them.
5. Write out what you consider to be the meaning of the above passage.

GEOGRAPHY
1. On the outline map provided, mark the position of Carlisle, Canterbury, Plymouth, Hull, Gloucester, Swansea, Southampton, Worcester, Leeds, Leicester and Norwich; Morecambe Bay, The Wash, Solent, Menai Straits and Lyme Bay; St Bees Head, The Naze, Lizard Point; the rivers Trent and Severn; Whernside, the North Downs, and Plinlimmon; and state on a separate paper what the towns named above are noted for.
2. Where are silver, platinum, tin, wool, wheat, palm oil, furs and cacao got from?
3. Name the conditions upon which the climate of a country depends, and explain the reason of any one of them.
4. Name the British possessions in America with the chief town in each. Which is the most important?
5. Where are Omdurman, Wai-Hei-Wai, Crete, Santiago, and West Key, and what are they noted for?

LATIN
1. Write in columns the nominative singular, genitive plural, gender, and meaning of:— operibus, principe, imperatori, genere, apro, nivem, vires, frondi, muri.
2. Give the comparative of noxius, acer, male, diu; the superlative of piger, humilis, fortiter, multum; the English and genitive sing. of solus, uter, quisque.
3. Write these phrases in a column and put opposite to each its Latin: he will go; he may wish; he had; he had been; he will be heard; and give in a column the English of fore, amatum, regendus, monetor.
4. Give in columns the perfect Indic. and active supine of ago, pono, dono, cedo, jungo, claudo.
Mention one example each of verbs followed by the nominative, the accusative, the genitive, the dative, the ablative.
5. Translate into Latin:—1. The general’s little son was loved by the soldiers.2. Let no bodies be buried within this city.3. Ask Tullius who found the lions.4. He said that the city had been taken, and, the war being finished, the forces would return.6. Translate into English:—
Exceptus est imperatoris adventus incredibili honore atque amore: tum primum enim veniebat ab illo Aegypti bello. Nihil relinquebatur quod ad ornatum locorum omnium qua iturus erat excogitari posset.

ENGLISH HISTORY
1. What kings of England began to reign in the years 871, 1135, 1216, 1377, 1422, 1509, 1625, 1685, 1727, 1830?
2. Give some account of Egbert, William II, Richard III, Robert Blake, Lord Nelson.
3. State what you know of — Henry II’s quarrel with Becket, the taking of Calais by Edward III, the attempt to make Lady Jane Grey queen, the trial of the Seven bishops, the Gordon riots.
4. What important results followed — the raising of the siege of Orleans, the Gunpowder plot, the Scottish rebellion of 1639, the surrender at Yorktown, the battles of Bannockburn, Bosworth, Ethandune, La Hogue, Plassey, and Vittoria?
5. How are the following persons connected with English History,— Harold Hardrada, Saladin, James IV of Scotland, Philip II of Spain, Frederick the Elector Palatine?

ARITHMETIC
1. Multiply 642035 by 24506.
2. Add together £132 4s. 1d., £243 7s. 2d., £303 16s 2d., and £1.030 5s. 3d.; and divide the sum by 17. (Two answers to be given.)
3. Write out Length Measure, and reduce 217204 inches to miles, &c.
4. Find the G.C.M. of 13621 and 159848.
5. Find, by Practice, the cost of 537 things at £5 3s. 71/2d. each.
6. Subtract 37/16 from 51/4; multiply 63/4 by 5/36; divide 43/8 by 11/6; and find the value of 21/4 of 12/3 of 13/5.
7. Five horses and 28 sheep cost £126 14s., and 16 sheep cost £22 8s.; find the total cost of 2 horses and 10 sheep.
8. Subtract 3.25741 from 3.3; multiply 28.436 by 8.245; and divide .86655 by 26.5.
9. Simplify 183/4 – 22/3 ÷ 11/5 – 31/2 x 4/7.
10. Find the square root of 5.185,440,100.
11. Find the cost of papering the walls of a room 16ft long, 13ft 6in. wide, and 9ft high, with paper 11/2ft wide at 2s. 3d. a piece of 12yds in length.
12. A and B rent a number of fields between them for a year, the rent and other expenses amounting to £108 17s. 6d. A puts in 2 horses, 5 oxen and 10 sheep; and B puts in 4 horses, 1 ox, and 27 sheep. If a horse eats as much as 3 sheep and an ox as much as 2 sheep, how much should A and B each pay?"

Norway and Switzerland do okay outside the EU, but they are both special cases. Switzerland’s economy is heavily subsidised by banking, and Norway is doing much better out of its oil revenues than we ever did, because their government struck a much better deal with the oil companies. Both are mountainous, have small populations, and are not really comparable to the UK. A more significant fact is that although any EU member state could leave, none has chosen to do so, with the marginal exception of Greenland. This strongly suggests that while the disadvantages of membership can be substantial, they are outweighed by the advantages.

Member governments have not yet surrendered any really substantial and effective powers to the EU. They have collaborated in a series of legal fictions that present the appearance of such a surrender, but that is something very different. Really very different indeed. I’ve been over that, and the reasons for it, and how it works, already. Repeatedly.

The EU Common Fisheries policy, which is a fancy way of saying give all our fish to the Spaniards, is a bribe, pure and simple. Our agreement to it means that if we need Spain’s vote in the EU Council against France or Germany, we can count on it. The Foreign Office is quite good at that sort of thing.

Yes, I’ve read Saul Alinksy. And I think he is wrong. It’s all well and good to say that “radicals” should cut their hair, wear a suit and subvert the system from within, but the fact is, the system is quite intelligent. If a person does not espouse its values enthusiastically, they are never going to get promoted to the point where they have any real influence. Promotion usually depends, at least once, usually more often, on being asked to carry out the sort of measures that any radical would refuse on conscience. This is a test of initiation, to find out where a person’s loyalties really lie. It’s like a gentlemanly version of joining the goodfellas, where if you are prepared to shoot a former close friend who is not a member of the gang, you’re in.

There are three reasons I don’t believe in conspiracies or plots.
One is that the usual reasons of stupidity, selfishness, power-lust, short-termism and cowardice are quite enough to account for most of the world’s ills without the need to posit such ideas.
The second is that to carry out a large-scale plot successfully, to manipulate powerful institutions and large numbers of people successfully, to “put one over” on political actors who are intelligent, resourceful and suspicious, and to do so consistently, over a long time-span, would demand intelligence and resourcefulness far beyond what anybody I have ever met or heard of possesses. A successful political conspirator would have to be in the nature of a superman. They aren’t. My strong suspicion is that most of them couldn’t find a pig in a bath, or their own backsides in a dark room even using both hands. In a slightly different context (but an illustrative example!), someone said the most frightening thing about Watergate was that Nixon and his cronies were unable to run a burglary competently….. And these people had been running the country? Politicians just aren’t intelligent and competent enough to do half the things that are attributed to the architects of the “European project”. They’d like to have a “European Superstate”, sure. But (very unsurprisingly) they have not been competent enough to create it. What they’ve got is the empty shell of one, which member states use to promote their own interests.
Thirdly, conspiracy theories are dreadfully seductive. It is always possible to find evidence of plots if you go looking for it, and if you are prepared to be selective with the evidence, and discount alternative, more prosaic, interpretations of the same phenomena. It’s all wonderfully exciting, and gives life spice and interest. But I know that if I go down that road, I’ll end up in tinfoil hat territory, so I’m not going there.

Came across this quote today from Professor Arnold Toynbee that I think is relevant:

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.

(Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War," International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809.)

As Director of Studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (1925-1955), he was a deep insider and knew whereof he spoke.

I must say I thought the opposite about the child actors in Narnia - I thought it quite uncanny how they (or the Director got them to) captured the nuances of the children of that era. I watched whatever the latest Harry Potter was at the time on the same day (it was one of the later 'dark' ones) and the leads in that were so drear in comparison! Well – in comparison with anything, really.

I am so lethargic about these things tho’ that much as I enjoyed the film, I didn’t bother toodling along to see ‘Prince Caspian.’

On the subject, if you haven’t seen ‘Coraline’ (and its extremely effective music) already do catch it.

Mr Davies, you conscientiously itemise myriad Bad Things about the EU and then fail to draw the logical conclusion – that the whole vast corrupt edifice must be broken up (along with all the other interrelated globalist projects that seek to cover the rest of the World in like fashion - APEC, NAFTA, the UN etc. The world is become like a vast Chicago run by gangsters, with the Bilderberg conference being their Hotel in Cuba)

I think the problem here is that whereas I am convinced of a Plain Truth - the totalitarian nature of the EU - and am merely frustrated by my inability to pack all the evidence into a capsule and download it into the mass consciousness in holographic form (but I despair of even that having an effect - the architects of the New Totalitarianism understand how to manipulate mass psychology too well and also the essentially sheepish and selfish nature of the collective Human Bean that facilitates their power – cf Huxley Jnr’s ‘Brave New World Revisited’) whereas yourself (an outrageous supposition, I know) are desperately thinking up arguments to bolster up an essentially flawed thesis – that the EU is not and can never be the Threat Mr EUrophobe thinks it is. You must admit, there is something of desperation in arguments like the following:

‘with 27 countries in the EU, the differences between the most developed and the least developed are now so great that the problem is developing any sort of coherent EU policies at all. In this mess, any prospect of establishing any sort of overall dominance seems further away than ever’

I am sure that the tyrannised populations of the mediaeval Steppes were likewise comforted by the knowledge that the more territory Tamurlaine acquired, the less of a threat he became.

I post here an example of how self deluding the Public Champions of the EU can be (in this case Harriet Harman, who is the EU in micro anyway in that the only limit to the tyrannies she seeks to impose is what she is prevented from imposing – she is a weak minded, personally ineffective Stalin capable nevertheless of wreaking great damage – like hundreds who work for the EU in fact)

This is from David Challice, UKIP admin. Manager:

‘Back in March 2009, in the House of Commons, Tory MP Ann Winterton stood up at Prime Minister’s Questions and asked for confirmation that: “…the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation, which forced Royal Mail to divest itself of its most profitable business, thereby handing it over lock, stock and barrel to European competitors.”

There was hush in the House. An embarrassed silence. Somebody had just back-fired in Church…

The Prime Minister was absent, with Harriet Harperson in his place. She rose, and replied smoothly: “The real reason was the analysis in the Hooper Report, which we commissioned as long ago as December 2007.” Then she sat down.

One problem. The Hooper Report makes it clear that EU rules are responsible: “Transformation [of Royal Mail] would have to be carried out under European rules on restructuring aid”, which would, “impose considerable restraints”. Unless Royal Mail could modernise faster: “a forced restructuring under European rules is highly likely.”

There are so many flaws of inner logic in the argument here though – at one stage you are insisting that we must stay within the EU to avoid the potentially ruinous effects of its imposed tariffs but on the other hand you are arguing that it is very limited in what it can impose and just puffs itself up.

John Davies, have you not heard of Norway and Switzerland? Both these countries are thriving happily outside the EU and as far as I am aware A) send a much larger proportion of their goods to the EU than we do and, B) trade as freely with the EU as much as the UK. I am also aware that their citizens have the same travel rights as other EU citizens.
The EU would not simply put the barriers up if we left, as they export far more goods to us than we do to them, thus would have a lot to lose if it did this. Besides, WTO regulations prevent such vindictive actions being taken.
Put simply, I do not believe leaving the EU would be the "be all, end all" move that Europhiles suggest it would be.

"Firstly, for the EU to move from its present powers to the sort of super-state its critics fear, national political elites would have to give up extremely substantial areas of power, far more than they show any signs of being prepared to do so far."

They haven't already given up substantial areas of power? Last time I checked, Westminster politicians were subservient to the Commission with regards trade policy, agriculture, business regulation, immigration and environmental legislation to name but a few areas of public policy. And this is discounting the new financial regulators the EU plans to establish (see Irwin Stelzer's Daily Telegraph article of 23/6/09) and the fact that the likes of Peter Mandelson are still active in efforts to bring about British Euro membership.

I find your idea that the British government "likes us all to believe they have delegated huge powers to the EU" somewhat questionable. Just a few weeks ago (then) Europe Minister Caroline Flint appeared on Question Time, repeating the New Labour mantra that just seven percent of our laws come from Brussels. Throughout the Lisbon/Constitution negotiations the government never stopped reminding us that this Treaty was just a "tidying up exercise" and that they would zealously guard their "red line" positions on issues like foreign affairs, defence and criminal justice. Royal Mail privatisation is far from popular, but I haven't heard any government ministers blaming the EU for this - which they would be justified in doing. Indeed, when Ann Winterton recently questioned Harriet Harman in the Commons on the question of EU-inspired Royal Mail privatisation, Harman's responded by denying any EU involvement.

Do these examples suggest a government that likes us all to believe its subservient to Brussels? In reality, British governments of any stripe are loathe to admit EU involvement in our affairs, for the obvious reasons that it would dent their prestige in the eyes of British voters and make the same voters less likely to vote for them at elections (as well as likely harm their remuneration). People go into politics in order to massage their egos, not to openly admit their impotence.

"Secondly, with 27 countries in the EU, the differences between the most developed and the least developed are now so great that the problem is developing any sort of coherent EU policies at all. In this mess, any prospect of establishing any sort of overall dominance seems further away than ever, thank heavens."

This is a fair point, and partly explains why a lot of Tories are keen on Turkish EU membership. The problem I have with this argument is that over the last half century the EU has shown it can combine expansion with integration. Can Turkish, Ukrainian or Serbian membership change this dynamic? I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. If anything, these countries will probably increase the numbers of small EU members happy to go along with anything Brussels proposes, because they will be net benefactors from the EU budget.

"Thirdly a great deal of our trade is with Europe. EU economic policies are protectionist. There is a tariff wall around the EU, designed to make it difficult for outsiders to gain access to the European market. If we left and because an outsider, it would become difficult and expensive to trade in the European market."

It would obviously be in the EU's interests as an institution to punish the UK for seceding, but economics would might mitigate any punishment. We import more than we export to the rest of the EU, so why should they want to limit access to customers? Negotiations would have to take place where we would have to press for the sort of deal Norway has with the EU.

No doubt such negotiations would be difficult, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be attempted.

I also think this last objection to secession is somewhat mitigated by the fact that upon leaving the EU, Britain would be able to negotiate trade agreements with other non-EU countries.

You say "since the dawn of mankind men have traded 'essential services'. If you wanted food or clothing which you couldn't produce yourself you bartered something of value in exchange and later paid for it with money. I would suggest that someone who claimed that others should pay for his 'essential service' would have got very short shrift indeed."

It is completely erroneous to insert the "essential services" you refer to above into the rail argument. The "services" to which you refer are presumably the various basic goods and labours, which early man no doubt bartered with.

But in the context of our civilisation, these are not the "essential services" upon which our argument is based. The services under consideration, which include health, electricity, medicine, defence, and of course public transport, are peculiar to modern westernised society, and have no meaning in the stone/bronze/iron ages, or the feudal systems to which you point in your counter-arguments.

However, if we must delve into civilisations from the distant past, let us consider the Roman Empire.
Did they not provide extensive road-building, water works, civil engineering etc, purely for the good of their subjects, with no eye for profit? I'm sure if their engineers had stumbled upon steam power, they would have built railways too, whatever the cost.

Also, you add "What's essential about railways anyway - nothing."

Mr Williamson, if we wish to maintain to a civilised society, by our definition thereof, then the provision of public transport, for which the railways are the backbone, is ***essential***.
I tend to agree with Mr H, in that I believe we are may well be coming to the tail-end of our western civilisation, but to give up on things such as public transport would be to 'throw in the towel' without even a whimper.

You add "Why should I make Richard Branson richer as he pockets the subsidies and spends nothing on improving the track. "

Why indeed - I agree. (Although I don't think Mr Branson is all that bad really, but I concur that we shouldn't be subsidising profits for train companies.) But this ridiculous situation was only brought about by the crass decision to privatise the railways in the first place. The first step to improving the service is to re-nationalise it.

The last of your points I wish to tackle is: "Once you start this rubbish, there's no stopping it: if you haven't got two television sets you're below the poverty line and somebody else must pay, if you can't afford a holiday on the Costa Del Sol every year, if you work in the public sector you can have an inflation proof final salary at the expense of the taxpayer and you don't even have to turn up for work that often."

Well, if it comes to a choice (which it must) as to whether we subsidise the lavish lifestyle of the work-shy, and provide hundreds of thousands of non-jobs which contribute nothing to the good of the nation, or subsidise a world-class railway network, (amongst other things), which would you pick?

If we had a government that taxed us fairly, and didn't proceed to squander the revenue on increasingly ridiculous schemes, then the cost of re-establishing our railways may even be acceptable to the likes of you, Mr Williamson.

This is like trying to pick up mercury, Mr Davies! Even if the the UK establishment is using the EU Common Fisheries Policy in its own concerted effort to destroy the British Fishing Industry, it is still the EU Common Fisheries Policy that has created the justification in the first place (EU quotas are the reason that British Fisherman, impoverished, imprisoned even, have had to throw millions of good fish back into the sea) And why are these people who hate our country so much in power in the first place?

I am going to say this again – why do we not just leave the EU and be done with it? Even if your theory is right, and that this is about the UK establishment using EU policy as a pretext for their own malicious destructiveness, why not then simply deprive them of that excuse? (And save millions in the subsidies we pay it at the same time. I note you have not (yet) tried to maintain that the EU doesn’t cost us anything.)

But this brings me to a very annoying argument that left wing colleagues (who know that the EU is totalitarian but still support it because it means imposing their ideology – I don’t believe they do not know this as they are not stupid) are always putting forward – the argument goes ‘well, we should just ignore the EU regulations like other European Countries do.’

I have heard that one many times. See the insane logic? We support the EU but do not believe we should obey its regulations.

Honestly, they will come out with the most ridiculous, nonsensical, contradictory arguments like the above just to hold on to their beloved World View.

The only enigma you are presenting me with at the moment, Mr Davies, is whether you either apply massive cognitive dissonance and are furious in your refusal to believe in conspiracy, or whether you know the deal and are pretending otherwise in what Mao would recognise as the Fish in Water manner.

I would refer you to just some of the smoking artillery that is desperately needed to be made into Received Knowledge in order to chip away at the thousands of tons of reinforced concrete that constitute the collective cognitive dissonance that is the main barrier to rescuing civilisation from the imposition of a terrible destructive totalitarianism – so follow at will just some of the following threads, and I have deliberately picked them because it is specifically INSIDERS revealing the agenda – CFR insider, Clinton mentor and trained historian Carroll Quigley (‘Tragedy and Hope’) who supported the conspiracy whilst writing about it at exhaustive length; H G Wells, the Fabian Socialist who was so adamant that the conspiracy should be made public knowledge despite his supporting it that he wrote about it in a book entitled ‘The Open Conspiracy.' Fellow Fabian and architect of Unesco Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous, no coincidence there) who revealed the One World agenda clearly in a 1946 volume to be found online entitled ‘UNESCO: Its purpose and philosophy.’

Now the only defence you will be left with after tackling that little lot will be something along the lines of ‘oh, well, that was all just a conspiracy to make people think there is a conspiracy when there really isn’t. It is all a pointless conspiracy designed to make people believe in a non-existent conspiracy. This is because we are highly trained academics and writers who have made a conscious decision to waste our entire lives perpetrating a sort of cosmic April Fool’s prank.’

There are many more (Karl Marx didn’t exactly hide his hand, did he?) but I would advise you start off with a thorough study of Saul Alinsky and read his ‘Rules for Radicals’ where, again, the conspiracy is spelt out in plain terms that a child could understand, i.e.: ‘True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within’

I would draw your attention to the following statement of yours:

‘I find myself as unable to see any “big picture”, or believe in any conspiracies, as I always found it impossible to respect the sort of crude Marxism that sees a “borge-wozzy” as the source of all the world’s evils’

But Alinsky combines the both. Not only does he provide a textbook designed to teach the Far Left how to infiltrate and dominate, he proclaims his belief in just that strain of Marxist dogma: "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism.”

Alinsky MUST be studied as he is Obama’s mentor and Obama is applying his techniques. "Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY,son of Saul Alinsky)

I don’t get paid for this. I have no hidden agenda. My take is that there is a 100% mortality rate on this planet and not facing up to the Truth is the biggest waste of Time that could possibly be imagined. I would not advise anybody HOW to argue or think – just to pursue and to tell the pure truth as they see it and refuse to rationalise. Now, I don’t know how far I have got towards it, but it is all in Good Faith – all of it.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.